Prof. Sheridan wrote, inter alia: <This nausea inducing business of calculating the worthiness of people for <inclusion and exclusion based on presumed racial or ethnic background may <have a certain amount of unfortunate history to back it up, as to many <groups, but why should we, in recognition of that, pretend it represents <'Equal protection under law?'
I wish America were a place of true racial equality. It is not and never has been. Maybe it will be in the future. Until then, let's deal with what we have. As for pretending that some process qualifies as equal protection under the law, I am not quite sure I understand what Prof. Sheridan's problem is. I am not familiar with any reading of the equal protection that says that government cannot make any distinctions between any groups of citizens for any reasons. The question is what the justification for any particular distinction is. Though Prof. Sheridan may disagree with the justifications given for race-based distinctions made under some affirmative action programs, the suggestion that AA is outside of the realm of equal protection does not seem quite right. Presumably, Justice O'Connor's reference to 25 years down the road ought not be viewed as a tolling of equal protection, but as a suggestion that in 25 years, the justification for AA should be too weak to uphold AA under the equal protection clause. -Hank Henry L. Chambers, Jr. James S. Rollins Professor of Law 318 Hulston Hall - University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri 65211 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
